View report page

112
As more adulterated samples, and samples under a different
name are mentioned in the Analyst's report, the following remarks
will explain the apparent discrepancies, and also state the reasons
why legal proceedings were not instituted:—
Milk.—"Deficient in fat 20 per cent." Sample procured on the
31st December, 1903, delivered to the Public Analyst on
the 1st January, 1904. Legal proceedings, 2nd February.
Costs 12s. 6d. Penalties, 2s. 6d.
Milk.—"Deficient in solids, not fat, to the extent of 6.1 per
cent" Siample procured by mistaike just outside the
Borough, in Hackney.
Milk.—"Deficient in solids, not fat, to the extent 4.1 per cent."
Letter of caution sent to the vendors.
Butter.—"Containing excess of water to the extent of 1.4 per
cent." Vendor cautioned.
Butter.—"Containing excess of water to the extent of 0.4 per
cent." Vendor cautioned.
Mustard.—"Adulterated with 5 per cent. of wheat flour."
Vendor cautioned.
Butter.—"Adulterated with foreign fat to the extent of 78.0 per
cent." This sample was sent to the Analyst as Is. salt, and
returned as a sample of margarine. The question of legal
proceedings was submitted to Mr. Young, the Solicitor
acting for the Council, as the sample had been served in
a plain wrapper, but enclosed in a paper bag marked "margarine."
The sample had been taken from a parcel marked
"margarine." The whole question was, whether the
wrapper was properly marked. Mr. Young advised no
proceedings.
Butter.—"Adulterated with foreign fat to the extent of 75.7 per
cent." This refers to the sample (Marked‡) for which
legal proceedings were taken on the 21st July. See page 111.